Russia Makes its Moves

A decision by the Kremlin to pay a naval visit to Syria as reported in Izvestia spells trouble.  Russia is clearly ramping up its position regarding what it sees as encirclement redux by the West.  Sending its flagship aircraft carrier the "Admiral Kuznetsov" along with a patrol ship, an anti-submarine craft and other vessels is a signal to NATO that Russia is willing to irritate the West - such as threatening to shut down the supply line to Afghanistan as well - to assert its resurgent foreign policy. 

Aside from the natural position of any country to protect its interests, the move to send a naval contingent to Syria is curious because the blow-back to Russian economic interests in Syria could be serious in long run.  Assad is going down and it is unlikely that the new government will recall the support given to him by the visiting ships with any fondness.  It may have been pre-planned, but it was not cancelled, and under the circumstances is a supremely stupid move by Moscow. Defending one's interests is one thing - supporting a bloody murderer is another. Not that the Russians don't have a history of supporting people like Assad - just look to Serbia. 

The other somewhat provocative move is the recent threat to cut off the supply route to NATO troops in Afghanistan.  Coupled with this weeks border closure by Pakistan, this could spell real trouble.  NATO is withdrawing anyway and the logic of the threat speaks more to the perceived and somewhat real containment of Russia by the US in Eastern Europe.  But, again, such a threat, if implemented, would affect real NATO interests and lives.  This would be a profoundly dumb move by the Kremlin unless it actually desires a return to the cold war - one it did not win. 

The timing of the threats from another standpoint is also curious. The US is Russia's greatest competitor. It is withdrawing from Afghanistan and has largely completed its withdrawal from Iraq.  Russian ability to reign-in its near-abroad depended on the window of opportunity provided by the distraction caused by those two wars.  The window is almost shut and the US will have more opportunity to shift its foreign policy focus away from these wars, much to the detriment of Russian foreign policy should it continue on this course. 

It is difficult to understand the choices that are made by those in power in Russia regarding how they protect their interests.  They certainly have other leverage points but appear to be deliberately choosing those that maximize the chance of long-term damage in relations with the West - a partner they desperately need.  The imminent re-assumption of power by Vladimir Putin coupled with militaristic muscle flexing does not auger well for future.

One if by land...two if by sea - The British are Coming

The British are putting advisors into Benghazi and the CIA has long been in the field. There is no turning back now and no one can argue that NATO and the GCC have not taken the side of the rebels against Colonel Qadaffi, sons and supporters. This is regime change time and the only reason NATO and others are in it up to their air intakes is that the revolution against the regime was failing. Revolutions fail all the time but since no one really liked Qadaffi and the rebels were getting their collective asses kicked by tribes not favourably disposed toward them, Europe’s military stepped into the breach.


I have repeatedly asked “what now?” from the beginning of the implementation of UNR 1973. I reject the arguments that the resolution did not authorize attacks on ground targets. Those arguments are either politically motivated (Russia, China) or ignorant (some anti-war-no-matter-what innocents, and the African Union as a whole). The resolution clearly said that all necessary measures could be taken and anyone who thinks a “no-fly” zone does not involve ground attacks is, frankly, a moron.

Nevertheless, here’s the question again. What now? What we are seeing is a British decision to send British advisors to help the rebels win. Downing Street may have advised NATO and sought what amounts to a ‘no objection’, but the insertion of military officers was a national decision, taken outside of NATO. It is, despite denials, boots on the ground and it is just the beginning if they want to truly defeat Qadaffi.

Clearly, the rebels cannot beat Qadaffi’s military on the ground at this point or in the near future. NATO airstrikes can only accomplish what airpower historically has always accomplished with absolute control of the sky – establish the conditions for the boots on the ground to crush any defense. But, NATO is not going in with troops – or at least not those from Germany, a supremely unreliable Western ally. The British, however, may have opened the door for the French because something has to be done about the reduction of Misrata sooner rather than later. Qadaffi’s army will likely abandon the use of tanks, which have become nothing if not moving coffins, and hit the ground. Qadaffi is fighting for survival now that he knows most everyone is out to get him. What now? NATO is stuck to the fly-paper. Expect the intervention to escalate rapidly because the revolution, gentlemen, has failed, and negotiations which premise Qadaffi remaining in power are a non-starter.

Germany - Stupidity has Consequences

Just how useless and irrelevant to NATO and the European idea can Germany become?  Apparently quite useless.

Deutsche-Presse reported last week that because NATO is taking over the UN mandated no-fly zone over Libya, and that NATO naval forces will patrol the coast as part of the arms embargo, Germany has withdrawn its ships from NATO command because it may be forced to fire a gun. If they are not going to use their military when requested, why don’t they just get rid of it? That would be the logical conclusion and would certainly save the German public significantly in the budget.


I know that Merkel is facing some tough elections – but this is just profoundly stupid on the part of Germany and reveals how rapidly useless they are to NATO or to their place in the West. Even the Green Party has criticized the move. What is more astounding is that Foreign Minister Westerwelle had wanted to vote against UN Security Council Resolution 1973 before Chancellor Merkel managed to convince him that an abstention was a better idea.
German politicians have been remarkably arrogant and not a little obtuse during the past year or two – from their muscle flexing over Greece to the extent suggesting that some Greek islands could be sold to pay for the economic mess and being as unhelpful as conceivably possible regarding the financial crises in the EU to slobbering over Russia and simultaneously irritating Poland and the Baltics. They want to run the EU in their (or Merkel's) image.  This latest bit of arrogance should remind Poland, France, Spain and Italy just how contemptuous their neighbor can be of anything proposed by someone else.

To the extent that Sarkozy needs an election lift, comparing French initiatives in foreign affairs to those of the eternally cringing Germans can’t hurt his chances. It also indicates that perhaps other EU members take a hard look at German export centric policy and its foreign policy to the extent it affects its neighbors.

European Coalition Cracking?

Europe is showing the cracks over the UNSC no-fly zone implementation as the US withdraws from its “leadership” position. Despite the hysterical, and in the case of Dennis Kucinich in the US, downright stupid, comments from US critics of the UNSC mission, the US has performed its stated policy perfectly and will vanish from the news as it has fired its last cruise missile. Now comes the interesting part in Europe.

France wants to continue to lead the charge in Libya and really is aiming to remove Qaddafi, one way or another. It does not want NATO involved as the operational structure of NATO would restrict French military activities – which are bent on regime change. Although a NATO lead would provide significant organizational assets, it would be a political mistake as that would make this purely a Western intervention despite the Security Council resolution. Italy wants NATO because it knows this will slow the regime change meme and result in a stalemate so it could continue to deal with Qaddafi. No one has asked how Qatari or other Arab forces would operate under NATO, whether wise or not, or if they would even agree to that arrangement.

So the maneuvering begins. Germany, as ever, is showing its inability to take part in anything with a combat role – making it more useless to NATO than ever except for base facilities. The German government will be suitably shocked at Qaddafi’s staged atrocities (something al Jazeera has already revealed as fake but credulity - deliberate or not - in some quarters rules). Like Italy, but for different reasons, it would support the lead role for NATO - if for nothing else than putting the brakes on France. As yet, it is unclear what positions Norway, Canada and the Arab League have on who should control the campaign, although in the case of the latter, getting rid of Qaddafi is high on the “to do” list.

Although I think that delivering the command and control to NATO is a bad idea on any number of levels, the decision of who will run the continuing campaign will be decided in a week or so – hopefully giving the French additional time to complete their agenda. If they are unable to take out the regime, and with the Libyan armor and artillery pretty much decimated, the regime will likely revert to an insurgency campaign involving urban terror campaigns and exhibits, when possible, of Western atrocities suitably staged with moveable military bodies dressed as civilians. This would mean a long haul campaign for which many (but not all) Europeans have never had any stomach and which will require a different approach.

Fortunately, very, very soon, the US will be out of the picture. Then little, if anything will be covered in the US because limited activities of logistical support to its allies is not exciting or controversial – unless critics on the left and right feel that support to US allies is not in its foreign policy interests. President Obama’s policy will have worked and other events will receive more play. Faux News can then go back to covering those nasty union people and any other pet anti-democratic project Murdoch and the Koch brothers have on their minds while CNN (in the US, not Europe or Asia) will simply get bored and go back to its normal useless news coverage of the latest flower shows. I suggest that people start viewing al Jazeera for continuing coverage if they so desire.

The Future of NATO to be decided over a Week-end

As NATO meets this week-end in Lisbon, three crucial issues will be on the table.


The first is Afghanistan. The timetable for withdrawal of NATO forces will focus on pace, not if. The rising crescendo of certain politicos in the US that there should be no withdrawal apparently forget that this is a NATO mission, not a US mission regardless of the fact that the majority of troops are American. Decisions in NATO are taken by unanimous consent. A decision not to withdraw is not an option. However, that does not mean that the mission – a decade old, by the way – should not be molded to fit the reality on the ground.

First, as often pointed out by me and others, Afghanistan has not been and will not be a country. It is a largely feudal system of differing tribes, some of whom have more power than others. The mission of NATO and the US in particular, was established as a response to the 9/11 terror attack by Al Qaeda which launched its training and planning from Afghanistan and who were guests of the Taliban. I’m sure there are elements of the Taliban today who wish they had not indulged their cultural traditions quite as much and thrown Al Qaeda out. Nevertheless, NATO has achieved its goal of destroying Al Qaeda Central and the mission needs to consider how to assure that Afghanistan does not become a base for international terrorism again. To do this, it will need to involve Pakistan, Russia, India and (yes) Iran.

NATO, and the US, did not plunge into the Afghan civil war raging at the time in the north between the Northern Alliance and the Taliban for the purpose of nation building. Good governance and civil society building were not part of the writ then and are a long vanished opportunity now. It was a wasted opportunity and short-sighted policy, but the reality is that the Taliban are deeply embedded in society, NATO is going away, and other tribes, particularly in the north, will not be inclined to cooperate with the Taliban alliance. These are the ingredients to a return to an Afghanistan with which all the local participants are very familiar. After NATO vanishes, expect a return to localized tribal war.

That is why NATO needs to discuss the structure of future involvement in Afghanistan, not only among its member states, but also with the surrounding players. It will need to formulate a strategy to deal with potential threats. The Taliban pose zero threat to NATO or any member country. They posed no threat in 2001 and less now. We may decry the return to what most in the West consider barbaric practices; but, aside from complaints, no one in the West was in favor of a massive use of force against the Taliban for their cultural proclivities and abuse of women. Otherwise, NATO might as well invade Saudi Arabia – an unlikely proposition.

NATO, as a body, appears particularly useless at this point in time and its principal mission, defending Europe from the Soviet Union, is not relevant. It must redefine its role and Afghanistan is a good place to start.

The second issue on the table is its relationship with a resurgent Russia. This is complicated by factors that Russia considers important to its foreign policy and its relationship with Europe – such as missile shield deployment and securing its field of influence. NATO has frequently stated that Russia is a partner, not an opponent. Many in the US do not see it that way and may well sink the START Treaty which is supported by the US military and important (thinking) Republicans. If START goes down and they are not included in the decision to deploy a missile shield, expect trouble.

For a start, Moscow may stop cooperating with the United States on Iran and, bearing in mind that Afghanistan will not be over for at least another few years, it may not be so generous with the transit of non –lethal material over its territory to supply NATO troops. It may renew pressure on its “near abroad” through energy supplies and less than subtle political pressure to make sure that NATO – and particularly the US – do not renew the Bush era political invasion of their turf. Finally, if START is not ratified and the Republican leadership succeeds in bringing a return to the confrontational policies of the previous administration with Russia, then Moscow hawks may win the day. So much for the reset button.

Third, and connected to the above is this issue of the missile shield. NATO, through the US, changed its focus from an overtly challenging system aimed at Russia that Bush and his neo-con allies sought to install, to one which is aimed at defending Europe and others from Iranian missiles. NATO will try and force the issue with Turkey for example. It has already asked that Turkey allow anti-missile shields to be placed on its territory. If Turkey says ‘no’, that will lose the second most powerful military to NATO, not to mention an important Muslim ally. If NATO pushes and Turkey says ‘yes’, then its standing in the Middle East will plummet- leaving Iran as the great protector. Ultimately, it is hoped that no specific countries are cited, giving Turkey the cover to place the shield on its soil. Of course, this is not to say that Turkey is not making some serious blunders along the way. The recent demand by Turkey that it be given operational control of the system based on its territory is absurd – but indicates the levels to which Turkey will go to gain respect and leverage in its back-yard. Time for NATO to be clever and devise a satisfactory solution because it would be sad to begin the ritual “who lost Turkey” refrain. Turkey needs to climb down from some of its positions as well.

By the end of the week-end, NATO will need to formulate an approach to the entire Middle East. It should have the wit to see how key Turkey is to the alliance and the West and not permit Israel to dictate policy. Fortunately, there is only one member of the alliance that allows its foreign policy to be directed by Israel. The others are not so inclined.

Finally, aside from specific areas of concern that must be addressed, NATO must redefine itself. It is already largely irrelevant but is unable to dissolve itself. None of its members, even France and Germany and certainly not Poland and the Baltics, want that to happen. Sweden and Finland will likely increase their participation in NATO short of becoming members. So, what is NATO to become? Because, the Cold War is over and political relationships are getting back to normal.

Ukraine Election 2010

Image via Wikipedia

The loss of Ukraine to Russia following the election of Yanukovich on Sunday will significantly change the geo-political map in Eastern Europe and the Caucuses.

Assuming that the recent election process change by the Party of Regions in the Rada repealing the requirement that representatives of both candidates be present to supervise vote counting at polling stations is exactly what it seems - an effort to forestall any challenges to the vote due to fraud and the final destruction of the Orange Revolution forces - then the game is over.

In Eastern Europe, Poland and the Baltic States have good reason to become alarmed as Russia regains its historical base in Ukraine. A new line will be drawn and without support from their EU counterparts in Western Europe - particularly Germany -these NATO countries will be looking toward a virtually bankrupt Britain and the overstretched United States for bilateral support. Other than words, the US has committed to major military games in the Baltics during 2010 - a not so subtle hint to Moscow that the annexation of territory from Georgia is significantly different from similar attempts in the Baltics - all of which are NATO members.

The role of non-EU members will need to be ramped up in Eastern Europe to fill the compromised economic positions of Germany - dependent on Russia for energy - and France - whose President is more than easily persuaded to follow purely economic interests (e.g. potential sale of a Mistral class ship to Russia). After Sunday, Europe will be looking at a resurgent Russian Empire in the east - and not a democratic one.

In the Caucuses Georgia now stands alone following the loss of Ukraine to Russia. Previously an important ally, the two countries worked in tandem in opposing Russian expansionism. The relationship now could turn confrontational. Yanukovich was fiercely pro-Russian regarding the invasion of Georgia. When Yanukovich is elected it is likely that he will follow through on a promise to recognize Georgia's rebel regions as independent states. Moscow recognized South Ossetia and another rebel region, Abkhazia, as independent after the war, a move that has so far been followed by only Nicaragua, Venezuela and the Pacific island state of Nauru. This would be an easy foreign policy decision for Ukraine and would be an immediate sign that Ukraine will cooperate with Russia's foreign policies. Even Belarus has refused to take this step, to the annoyance of Moscow.

Turkey will also need take a deep breath as it is Russia's only strong regional competitor. Russia has been calling the shots in the Armenia/Azerbaijan talks. Armenia is already a client state of Russia and Azerbaijan is furious with its cultural brother, Turkey, for attempting to normalize relations with Armenia without resolution of the Ngorno Kharabach dispute. Turkey will need to balance its economic interests with its now much more powerful neighbor in the north against US hopes that Turkey would be a powerful buffer. Also, the Armenia normalization issue will be put on the back burner simply because of Russian control of the negotiations will push Turkey to expand its considerable influence in the Middle East. The continuing opposition to EU membership by France and Germany will add to a Turkish foreign policy emphasis away from Europe and a geo-political settlement in the Caucuses with Russia.

Distant from the borders of Russia and Ukraine, expect the acceleration of NATO membership of Montenegro which will leave Russia's sole ally in the region, Serbia, completely surrounded by NATO members. Additionally, as a move to protect the Baltic States, Sweden will likely move closer to NATO and increase its influence in the Baltic region while the US Defence Department has announced a realignment of forces in Europe to account for the North Atlantic Treaty Organization’s changing role and security issues such as events of the last couple of years in Georgia.

Following Sunday the map changes, which will mean a realignment of foreign policy objectives by Europe and the United States.

Aside from that it is a very sad day for Ukraine as under Yanukovich, a man with a criminal record who was unfortunately allowed to remain free after 2004 by the now disgraced Yushchenko, expect the media to be suppressed to please Moscow and for future elections to model themselves after the political structure of Russia.

Good News Bad News - Afghanistan and the West Bank

Some time ago I offered my opinion of the,then, proposed surge in Afghanistan - the request by General McChrystal for a significant increase in troop deployment. He got 30,000 (the media seems to continue to ignore the previous deployment of 12,000 earlier in 2009 making the total over 40,000 so I will too for now).

The Republicans, of course, stamped their collective hooves saying the General should get whatever he feels is necessary for prosecution of the war. Fortunately, the grown-ups decided to actually think about future strategy rather than allowing the military to dictate to the civilians in control (a source of frequent confusion to those in perpetual opposition to anything). Well, what will all those Republicans say now to this (registration required).

For those who can't access the article in the Financial Times here is a key part:

“As a soldier, my personal feeling is that there’s been enough fighting,” he said. “What I think we do is try to shape conditions which allow people to come to a truly equitable solution to how the Afghan people are governed.”

Asked if he would be content to see Taliban leaders in a future government in Kabul, he said: “I think any Afghans can play a role if they focus on the future, and not the past.”

The remarks reveal the growing faith the US military is placing in the hope that a power-sharing arrangement can end the war, a possibility floated in Islamabad last week by Robert Gates, the US defence secretary, when he described the Taliban as part of Afghanistan’s “political fabric”.

The coming conference in London to discuss strategy will be a crucial meeting for NATO. Europe wants a definite exit strategy and the US has already issued a deadline to President Karzai. Although I did not agree with the surge, now that it is in place arguing about its usefulness is moot. General McChrystal has also tied his credibility to the request to support his plan, so he has much at stake. But, it is his sentiments expressed that I find most telling. It should really upset the Republicans. Good.

Now, juxtapose his statements with those of The Worst Israeli President Ever while planting a tree in the West Bank:

"Our message is clear: We are planting here, we will stay here, we will build here. This place will be an inseparable part of Israel for eternity".

Eternity, Mr. Netanyahu, is a lot longer than you will be in charge. Not helpful at all and is only a further example of the extremist positions taken by the current regime in Israel that really began manifesting itself with the childish incident of the low chair for the Turkish ambassador. Well, people usual get the government they deserve.

Afghanistan II - What's the Plan?

Image by Carl Montgomery via Flickr

The decision to invade Afghanistan was aimed at the destruction of Al Qaida as an effective force able to stage complex and large scale terrorist activities, deny it a secure base and simultaneously to drive the Taliban from power. Al Qaida has since been marginalized and since the invasion has been unable to mount any form of coordinated, serious attack against the US. They are no longer a threat to the US and no longer have a base of operations in Afghanistan such as existed under the protection of the Taliban.

The Taliban were driven from power by US and allied forces. There was no effective follow-thru and soon, the Repblican administration abandoned the hunt for Osama bin Laden and allowed the rural areas to become havens for the Taliban. The US is now paying the price for the misjudgements of the Bush administration in Afghanistan and the choice to turn its eye, efforts and money on Iraq.

The Taliban are resurgent and effective. The country is dangerously corrupt. Karzai is more the mayor of Kabul than president. The recent election was shot thru with fraud and after a recount, a new election is likely. General McChrystal's solution is a major troop surge of at least 40,000 while NATO allies have had enough and will send no more. They want an exit strategy. What alternatives does the new Obama administration have after inheriting a shattered foreign policy, shattered economic policy at home and questionable support from NATO allies?

First, there is the McChrystal alternative. It is not surprising for the general in charge to see the effects of more than six years of indifference to the mission and ask for more troops. But will more boots on the ground really make a difference? That is highly unlikely. The Taliban know that the US will not be in place forever and they can afford to wait. The US treasury cannot continue to absorb endless wars, whether justified or not. And the US cannot continue to sacrifice its military on what very well may be an unwinable war in the conventional sense. Historically there would be no precedent for military victory.

However, putting an additional 40,000 troops into Afghanistan will smack of an occupation. More troops is not better. In fact, it will antagonize the Afghans and serve as a rallying cry for the Taliban. Far more effective would be highly trained special forces that are used to pinpoint targets and terrorist bases to disrupt and destroy Taliban operations. Coupled with an effort to make sure that aid is meaningful - rebuilding infrastructure for example - would go a long way to removing the attraction of the Taliban and deflate any propaganda characterizing the war as an occupation.

Second, the Obama administration has already dialed down the effort to eradicate opium poppy production. This was a misguided effort as all it did was drive poor farmers into the hands of the Taliban. Opium growing accounts for a third of the Afghan economy. No substitute was offered and destruction of the fields meant destruction of the family. It was a foolish policy and the Obama administraton should continue its targeted opium field destruction policy while significantly raising the level of effort to give farmers alternatives so they and their families don't have to choose between starvation and the Taliban.

Third, and most importantly, it is clear that somewhere in 2005 - 2006 the US slowly slipped into a nation-building mission. This was a huge error and needs to be rapidly reversed.

Afghanistan has never been a nation - so there is nothing to rebuild - and the US should not be in that business. Nation building requires the assent of the population and they must do it themselves. The Bush administration indulged in an alarming tendency to lecture other nations and peoples. How has that worked out? It is absurd to believe that anything the US does can result in a viable, cohesive Afghanistan when its entire history is one of tribal rivalry which only seems to come together when a foreign presence descends on Herat or Kabul be it Persia, the Mongols, England, Russia or the US. It is truly the 'graveyard of empires'. None have succeeded. None.

The choices facing the Obama administration are stark and not of its making. Eight years of mismanagement and myth building will not be fixed quickly. President Obama must ignore the conventional wisdom that permeates the Washington village. It has been consistently and deadly wrong for eight years - and not just in Afghanistan.

Everyone wants success but is unable to define it. Richard Holbrook defined success as "knowing it when we see it". Really? What are the goals? Who exactly, is the enemy? I respect Ambassador Holbrook enormously, but I certainly hope that "we'll know it when we see it" is not the definition of success being adopted by this administration. The US needs an exit strategy - an end game - and not one for a long-term engagement with significant military forces.

The internal political problems that the Obama administration faces regarding Afghanistan are one of "damned if you do and damned if you don't". It is abundantly clear that the Republican opposition is not interested in engagement and debate and is simply going to try and tear down, obstruct and damage this administration in any way possible, including fear, obfuscation and outright lies. They will need to be steamrolled. Period.

Granting General McChrystal the troops he claims is necessary for victory - or at least to stabilize the situation - is not necessarilly what is needed. Again, a significantly larger military footpring will achieve the opposite effect with the population. Additional troops of this magnitude will make it impossible to disangage and will be used to justify more troops and money. It has happened before and is a disease that seems to infect American foreign policy.

Fewer troops with a narrow mission of containing and destroying Al Qaida is much more practical than a massive ground war against the Taliban. At the same time,the United States should increase international assistance to Afghanistan under UN supervision. The aid should target the creation of sustainable development, particularly in rural areas. Furthermore, continuing to target opium producers directly tied to the Taliban is a viable policy while providing income-producing alternatives to all the rest would reduce the growing antipathy toward the US.

The Obama administration needs to brush aside the wise old men who pontificate every Sunday on television and in the rapidly shrinking print media who suggest that if only the US had enough troops and enough time, we could build a nation. The US could stay in Afghanistan for a thousand years and it would not achieve its definition of success if the definition is the creation of some sort of Jeffersonian democracy.

Next, I want to discuss the larger picture. Iran, Russia, Europe and Israel.

Afghanistan Fast Forward

For the past eight years, the US has been fighting in and supplying technical assistance to Afghanistan.

The focus of the current debate is whether to send significantly more troops - General McChrystal wants 40,000 - as the only alternative to "win" the war. President Obama, the Pentagon and the State Department, among others, are slowly developing a plan - something that has been lacking - regarding the way forward. But, before determining the size of the military presence, President Obama needs to explain the goal.

The goal used to be the destruction of al-Qaida and the capture of Osama bin Laden. Then the focus changed, particularly with the preparations for the war-of-choice of the Bush-Cheney administration to invade Iraq which had no connection whatsoever to the attacks by al-Qaidi in New York and Washington. The preparatioins for the Iraq war can be directly linked to the failures in Afghanistan which were well documented by 2005 and with which the US must deal with in expanded form now.

In subsequent posts I want to examine where we have been and where we may be going in Afghanistan and some of the assumtions that underlie many policies undertaken by the US that may well be very wrong.

The Arctic Circle - Free at Last

The story of the Artic Circle hijacking keeps becoming more murky as the chronology is revealed. It was hijacked in the Baltic and the Russians, it appears, kept it a secret from Finland - where the ship is registered. Now there is speculation that the ship was hijacked twice - the second time after it had left the English Channel. Additional speculation is that it was heading for Algeria or Iran - although how it would pass Gibraltar, much less Suez or sail around the Cape of Good Hope - is left in the air.

Even more speculation is whose navy actually intercepted the ship, Russia or NATO and what was on it. Timber - yes, apparently. Nuclear materials? Missiles?

I suspect we will never know and that will feed the speculation.

The Arctic Sea

No - not the place. The ship.

This is a very weird story and perfect for the summer. Reports have indicated that this ship, hijacked apparently in of all places the Baltic, is somewhere near the Cape Verde Islands. It is still not clear, but now NATO as well as the Russian's are involved (16 Russian crew).

Great for conspiracy theorists too. The ship was first reported to be carrying timber. If so, why would anyone bother to hijack it - in the Baltic and then switch off its automatic locater after passing the English Channel.

With the Russian navy on its way to the Cape Verde Islands, the upcoming intercept will be fascinating to watch.

UPDATE: RIA Novisti reported today that the ship has been intercepted by Russian warships and the Russian crew is now being interviewed.

Related articles by Zemanta

• Muddy waters: Russia finds 'piracy' ship (guardian.co.uk)

Meeting in Moscow

Image by eesti via Flickr

The meetings being held as I write in Moscow will decide how the US and Russia will deal with each other for rest of 2009 and perhaps beyond. The US wants Russia's help with Afghanistan, Iran and Palestine. Russia wants the US to draw back from Eastern Europe, Georgia and Central Asia. Both Russia and the US want to sign a successor treaty to START.

Russia has stated that the US can transport non-lethal and lethal materials over and perhaps on its territory for the Afghan effort. This will not come without a quid pro quo. The question is - what will the US give up? The BMD's in Poland will likely be postponed. The US will also likely agree to draw back a little on efforts to bring Ukraine and Georgia into NATO. In the former, there is simply no strong desire and in the latter, the current government behaves too eratically to be considered an ally.

The BMD placement is really not a big deal since they are of questionable utility and Poland has just received significant military hardware from the US (50 F16) and will soon deploy Patriot missles as well. This will allow Poland to feel a little more secure and will satisfy Poland to the extent that it needs to at the moment. What else can the US give up? Very little, I would imagine, without damaging its credibility in Eastern Europe.

Ultimately, aside from a reduction in nuclear arsenals which both countries want, the geopolitical differences are not that flexible. I don't expect much to come out of the meeting other than a new START treaty, postponement of the BMDs and a temporary lull in the expansion of NATO.